IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v50y2021i3p1034-1072.html

Covariance Regression Models for Studying Treatment Effect Heterogeneity Across One or More Outcomes: Understanding How Treatments Shape Inequality

Author

Listed:
  • Deirdre Bloome
  • Daniel Schrage

Abstract

Causal analyses typically focus on average treatment effects. Yet for substantive research on topics like inequality, interest extends to treatments’ distributional consequences. When individuals differ in their responses to treatment, three types of inequality may result. Treatment may shape inequalities between subgroups defined by pretreatment covariates, it may induce more inequality in one subgroup than another, or it may polarize people across multiple dimensions of well-being. We introduce a model, called a covariance regression, that captures all three types of inequality via the means, variances, and correlations between multiple outcomes. The model can test for heterogeneous treatment effects, quantify the heterogeneity, and explain its structure using covariates. Finding that a treatment creates inequalities could drive theoretical refinement and inform policy decisions (targeting groups where payoffs will be most predictable). We illustrate the utility of covariance regressions by analyzing the effects of sharing information about income inequality on redistributive preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Deirdre Bloome & Daniel Schrage, 2021. "Covariance Regression Models for Studying Treatment Effect Heterogeneity Across One or More Outcomes: Understanding How Treatments Shape Inequality," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 50(3), pages 1034-1072, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:50:y:2021:i:3:p:1034-1072
    DOI: 10.1177/0049124119882449
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124119882449
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0049124119882449?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James J. Heckman & Sergio Urzua & Edward Vytlacil, 2006. "Understanding Instrumental Variables in Models with Essential Heterogeneity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 88(3), pages 389-432, August.
    2. King, Gary & Roberts, Margaret E., 2015. "How Robust Standard Errors Expose Methodological Problems They Do Not Fix, and What to Do About It," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 159-179, April.
    3. Yaoyao Xu & Menggang Yu & Ying‐Qi Zhao & Quefeng Li & Sijian Wang & Jun Shao, 2015. "Regularized outcome weighted subgroup identification for differential treatment effects," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 71(3), pages 645-653, September.
    4. Adam J. Rothman & Elizaveta Levina & Ji Zhu, 2010. "A new approach to Cholesky-based covariance regularization in high dimensions," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 97(3), pages 539-550.
    5. Ilyana Kuziemko & Michael I. Norton & Emmanuel Saez & Stefanie Stantcheva, 2015. "How Elastic Are Preferences for Redistribution? Evidence from Randomized Survey Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(4), pages 1478-1508, April.
    6. Furrer, Reinhard & Bengtsson, Thomas, 2007. "Estimation of high-dimensional prior and posterior covariance matrices in Kalman filter variants," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 98(2), pages 227-255, February.
    7. Marianne P. Bitler & Jonah B. Gelbach & Hilary W. Hoynes, 2017. "Can Variation in Subgroups' Average Treatment Effects Explain Treatment Effect Heterogeneity? Evidence from a Social Experiment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 99(4), pages 683-697, July.
    8. Abadie A., 2002. "Bootstrap Tests for Distributional Treatment Effects in Instrumental Variable Models," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 97, pages 284-292, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. McNamara, Trent & Mosquera, Roberto, 2024. "The political divide: The case of expectations and preferences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    2. Patrick Kline & Christopher R. Walters, 2019. "On Heckits, LATE, and Numerical Equivalence," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(2), pages 677-696, March.
    3. Lars Kirkebøen & Edwin Leuven & Magne Mogstad, 2014. "Field of Study, Earnings, and Self-Selection," NBER Working Papers 20816, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Humlum, Anders & Munch, Jakob R. & Rasmussen, Mette, 2023. "What Works for the Unemployed? Evidence from Quasi-Random Caseworker Assignments," IZA Discussion Papers 16033, IZA Network @ LISER.
    5. Buhl-Wiggers, Julie & Kerwin, Jason T. & Muñoz-Morales, Juan & Smith, Jeffrey & Thornton, Rebecca, 2024. "Some children left behind: Variation in the effects of an educational intervention," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 243(1).
    6. James J. Heckman, 2008. "The Principles Underlying Evaluation Estimators with an Application to Matching," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 91-92, pages 9-73.
    7. Jinhyun Lee, 2013. "Sharp Bounds on Heterogeneous Individual Treatment Responses," Discussion Paper Series, School of Economics and Finance 201310, School of Economics and Finance, University of St Andrews.
    8. Carneiro, Pedro & Lee, Sokbae, 2009. "Estimating distributions of potential outcomes using local instrumental variables with an application to changes in college enrollment and wage inequality," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 149(2), pages 191-208, April.
    9. Guido W. Imbens & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2009. "Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(1), pages 5-86, March.
    10. Fang, Qian & Yu, Chen & Weiping, Zhang, 2020. "Regularized estimation of precision matrix for high-dimensional multivariate longitudinal data," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    11. Nadja van 't Hoff, 2023. "Identifying Causal Effects of Discrete, Ordered and ContinuousTreatments using Multiple Instrumental Variables," Papers 2311.17575, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2024.
    12. Yi, Feng & Zou, Hui, 2013. "SURE-tuned tapering estimation of large covariance matrices," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 339-351.
    13. Brigham R. Frandsen & Lars J. Lefgren, 2021. "Partial identification of the distribution of treatment effects with an application to the Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP)," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(1), pages 143-171, January.
    14. Matthew L. Comey & Amanda R. Eng & Pauline Leung & Zhuan Pei, 2022. "Supercompliers," Papers 2212.14105, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2024.
    15. Sun, Zhenting, 2023. "Instrument validity for heterogeneous causal effects," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 237(2).
    16. Gibbons Charles E. & Suárez Serrato Juan Carlos & Urbancic Michael B., 2019. "Broken or Fixed Effects?," Journal of Econometric Methods, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-12, January.
    17. Evan K. Rose & Yotam Shem-Tov, 2021. "On Recoding Ordered Treatments as Binary Indicators," Papers 2111.12258, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.
    18. Xue, Lingzhou & Zou, Hui, 2013. "Minimax optimal estimation of general bandable covariance matrices," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 45-51.
    19. Heckman, James J., 2010. "The Assumptions Underlying Evaluation Estimators," Brazilian Review of Econometrics, Sociedade Brasileira de Econometria - SBE, vol. 30(2), December.
    20. Lee, Jinhyun, 2013. "Sharp Bounds on Heterogeneous Individual Treatment Responses," SIRE Discussion Papers 2013-89, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:50:y:2021:i:3:p:1034-1072. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.